Navy to slash medical billets; civilians will fill most posts

This NavyTimes story from December 2006 is from the wayback machine but it is very relevant today. The story describes efforts to replace uniformed providers with civilian physicians:

The Navy says it will eliminate more than 3,000 corpsman billets and about 600 physician, dentist, nurse and other medical officer billets between now and 2012 in an effort to focus the medical corps on supporting military operations.

Those numbers do not include the nearly 1,400 corpsman and 700 medical officer billets that have been slashed during the past two years, in accordance with a directive to remove military personnel from fields at naval hospitals, such as pediatrics and geriatrics, that are used primarily for treating dependents and retirees. Those positions are to be filled by civilians.

That means that between 2005 and 2012, the Navy will have lost roughly 20 percent of its corpsman billets and significant percentages of several medical officer jobs...

The military has engaged in continued heavy lifting since 2003 and demand for medical services has increased. Common sense suggests cutting medical personnel would be expected to decrease the medical corps' capability to support military operations.

Does employment of contractor and GS physicians really result in a cost savings? What effect do contractor and GS physicians have on retention and morale of the Medical Corps? As shore based billets are converted to civilian positions, this leaves proportionally more operational billets and deployments for military physicians. In many cases physician contractors are earning twice what their uniformed peers are taking home not including the contracting company's overhead. This pay disparity creates an uncomfortable situation where uniformed providers work side-by-side with contractors who are paid more and work less (no call, weekends or deployments). Are these positions motivating uniformed personal to hang up their packs to become GS or physician contractors?

Reference: http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/0-NAVYPAPER-2387855.php

Topic: